Today...

[RpgGamer]

Yeah I get that issue if i play more than an hour or so or if I have discord open along with the game. I am also mediocre, but it's tons of fun

[Noxx]

So according to some Saudi and UAE news sources, any sympathy expressed towards Qatar over social media can land you a fine of ~$150k+ and 3+ years in jail. Things are getting a bit ridiculous to be honest. I really can't see things ending too well. Won't really surprise me if we're handed a dose of freedom in the not to distant future. 

[RpgGamer]

Saudi? Being extremist in punishment? Nah that can't be right

[Boris5000]

Classic Britain

[Estonian dude]

I thought the election went well, what's wrong?

[Boris5000]

I thought the election went well, what's wrong?

As it stands, depending on which side of the fence you sit it is 'good' for both sides.

The Conservative leader "lost" the election (lost too many seats, to not obtain complete majority), but still won. And the Opposition (Labour) "won" the election (gained more seats but not enough for a majority, even with a minor-opponent coalition) but nonetheless lost. To reach a majority, the conservative party is attempting/succeeded in forming a coalition with a NI party the DUP. 

 

The kicker here is the conservative campaign spent most of the time slating the opposition leader for being a terrorist sympathiser - then the conservative party upon not reaching a majority then (attempts to) form a coalition with the DUP (which is backed by terrorists, apparently (according to my social media bubble and reddit, such research)).

And according to slogans from the DUP they expressly implied that they were not going to listen to the Tories "Vote for people who listen to you and not listen to the tories" (OWTTE).

 

In total I believe there was essentially 2,500 votes (counting the constituencies that have narrows vote margins) that mattered between whether a labour majority (or Labour/SNP/LD coalition) would win - and I feel bitter about it. As someone deeply invested in Science, A hard brexit is potentially catastrophic for my growth as an academic in the United Kingdom. And the results of this election closes some doors for me, and a lot more for others.

 

n.b. Nothing is really confirmed yet. So I crying prematurely. I would like a re-election tbh.

 

EDIT: Also I should add, that now that there is a stronger opposition it is likely that certain policies which are particularly bad will be unlikely to make their way out of parliament.

[obfuscator]

From afar, this seems like a pretty good result. You have the conservatives sent a clear message about how shit they are (which hopefully leads to a new leader) but you avoid having corbyn as PM.

[RpgGamer]

I've come to realize that I know very little about how British elections work

[Randox]

I think they work pretty much the same way as Canada. Everyone votes for their local representative, most of whom belong to an established party. There is a seat in parliament for each of these ridings, and whoever gets the most votes in the local election for that riding gets the seat. If a single party wins a majority of the seats then the leader of that party becomes the prime minister.

 

In the British system, I believe if no party wins an outright majority then the previous government automatically retains power temporarily (since it will take time to form the next government). I believe the party with the most votes is the one that must either form a coalition with another party or parties that can give them a combined majority, attempt to rule as a minority government, or cede leadership to another party (this has never been done. It is considered likely that such a move would trigger public demands for a new election).

 

I think they overshot the message to the conservatives, at least from my outsider, foreign policy focused position. Two problems. First, going into Brexit negotiations seems like a stunningly bad time for a potentially unstable government. If this government gets defeated halfway through the negotiations that's not likely to be a good thing for the UK. The other problem is that the only party that was ever going to be willing to work with the conservatives in a minority situation are the Democratic Unionist Party, who are further to the right and possibly crazy. They might have been aiming for a more liberal government, but it looks like what they've actually done is elect an even more conservative version, with the bonus possibility of another election during Brexit negotiations (if that happens, it seems very likely that they will not be able to make a complete exit treaty inside the deadline, forcing a harder Brexit and months of uncertainty while trade negotiations are finalised).

 

 

The Qatar situation seems like the kind of scenario that can lead to accidental wars. If Turkey is sending in Navy Ships (or if that offer is accepted? Not sure if it was an offer or something that has happened), I'd anticipate the Turkish Navy being used to escort commercial shipping through any blockade, and that's just asking for trouble if it goes on for too long. I also see that, as an ally of counties on both sides of the dispute, the United States has gone for the cunning strategy of playing both sides of the conflict at the same time  :unsure:

 

It's an...interesting strategy to be sure, but it just might be crazy enough to work  :-D

[Hedgehog]

I think the prime minister is basically like the speaker of the house, except obviously it's a more powerful position in the UK.

[Tesset]

In the UK, are the Tories not the highly nationalistic party? Very "UK First," the same way the Republicans are in America?

 

That was my understanding, but if that's true, I literally don't understand how it wasn't a landslide, with there being a terrorist attack less than a month prior to the election on British soil. I always thought those events resulted in nationalistic fervor, and that's when nationalistic parties get more power.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm super happy that the there isn't a majority nationalist government in place in the UK, but I remain surprised.

[Boris5000]

If the labour government is described as one that spends money, then the conservative government, by definition should be one that conserves money. But in reality that isn't the case. Infact in the 7 years of lies, and cuts and all round lunacy the deficit has grown, but it is still somehow labours fault.  :rolleyes:

 

(Boris5000 is in no way a Politician or an Economist - Just a poor boy from a poor family.)

 

The last labour government (ala Blairite Labour), was a peculiar breed that was essentially Center-Right Left (Tories being Center-Right Right). That labour essentially crumbled when the recession hit and w.e money was available needed to be used to bailout banks. Now we have a labour that we could actually call socialist (Left, but not as left as the green party) that is committed to spending money in the NHS and Education, a leader who is described as "radically" left, un-electable, a terrorist sympathiser and someone who would run the country into the ground. But he was continuously elected the leader of the labour party (atleast twice). He is more interested in peaceful resolutions for conflict. And at least attempting to give the working class of the United Kingdom a chance.

 

What really [bleep]ed me off, was when one of the live debates essentially boiled down to "Jeremy Corbyn, why won't you kill millions of innocent people with nuclear weapons? Theresa May said she would do it in a heartbeat, but you refuse!".

 

What also [bleep]ed me off is that the people who rely on the public services would rather have voted Tory just because they didn't like Corbyn. 

 

Edit: I need a few more [bleep]s. [bleep] [bleep] [bleep]

[Estonian dude]

In the UK, are the Tories not the highly nationalistic party? Very "UK First," the same way the Republicans are in America?

 

That was my understanding, but if that's true, I literally don't understand how it wasn't a landslide, with there being a terrorist attack less than a month prior to the election on British soil. I always thought those events resulted in nationalistic fervor, and that's when nationalistic parties get more power.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm super happy that the there isn't a majority nationalist government in place in the UK, but I remain surprised.

 

Terrorist attacks in Europe are nothing new. Have happened all the time and will happen all the time. It is a part of life like death itself. Only difference is, it hasn't been called terrorism all that time. And it certainly wasn't given that much coverage.

 

UK was pretty much in a guerrilla war with IRA for decades. Peace was brokered not too long ago, and then were bombs and stuff common.

 

I haven't recently followed how things are going in Spain with Basque radicals.

 

Russia has "terrorist attacks" in Caucasus region bi-weekly, or so it seems.

 

The thing is, the "terrorists" are mainly either the citizens of the country where the deed is done or at least long time residents. What good does hating outsiders help then?!?

[Randox]

A Prime Minister is more akin to a President (Speaker of the House is a separate position). By and large, the Prime Minister, and their Cabinet Ministers, call the shots, and party members are expected to support party legislation (so a President who doesn't have to battle their own party to get laws passed). The details and customs vary by country, but that's the basic idea.

 

The British Conservatives haven't struck me as nationalistic, but I don't live there (I just listen to the BBC while playing Euro Truck). Much of the Conservative Party, including PM May, were against Brexit. I also figure that as soon as Labour ditches Corbyn their party will win in a landslide. Britis are currently caught between a rock and a crazy place.

[obfuscator]

A Prime Minister is more akin to a President (Speaker of the House is a separate position). By and large, the Prime Minister, and their Cabinet Ministers, call the shots, and party members are expected to support party legislation (so a President who doesn't have to battle their own party to get laws passed). The details and customs vary by country, but that's the basic idea.

 

The British Conservatives haven't struck me as nationalistic, but I don't live there (I just listen to the BBC while playing Euro Truck). Much of the Conservative Party, including PM May, were against Brexit. I also figure that as soon as Labour ditches Corbyn their party will win in a landslide. Britis are currently caught between a rock and a crazy place.

To add to this: The prime minister is (in theory) just another member of parliament. But because they're the leader of the party, they have a huge amount of power (enforced by the party whip). On paper they have less power than the president of the US. In practice (in some areas) they have more. This does vary a bit over the different flavours of westminster democracy. Australia is less like this because they have frequent leadership reviews, so it's easier for the caucus to turf a leader they don't like. Canada never has these, so basically the only way a leader gets removed is if they resign (or lose multiple elections so a leadership convention is called for). From what little I know of the UK it's somewhat in between.

[Dax]

We've only been playing silly buggers with our PMs for a bit recently. We'd had a good run before then, as far as I know, the only other PM we wasted prematurely was Whitlam.

[Randox]

 

...

To add to this: The prime minister is (in theory) just another member of parliament. But because they're the leader of the party, they have a huge amount of power (enforced by the party whip). On paper they have less power than the president of the US. In practice (in some areas) they have more. This does vary a bit over the different flavours of westminster democracy. Australia is less like this because they have frequent leadership reviews, so it's easier for the caucus to turf a leader they don't like. Canada never has these, so basically the only way a leader gets removed is if they resign (or lose multiple elections so a leadership convention is called for). From what little I know of the UK it's somewhat in between.

 

Good points. It also strikes me that a key point of confusion for Americans might be our seeming lack of an executive branch of Government.

 

Using Canada as my example, our Head of State is the British Monarch, who is represented in the Federal Government by the Governor General (an equivalent exists for each of the provinces, called the Lieutenant Governor). Much like the United States, our Judicial functions are managed by the courts, headed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The legislative functions are carried out by the House of Commons and the Senate, and since only the House of Commons may draft new laws, the legislative branch is effectively headed by the Prime Minister.

 

So far as I know, executive power is formally retained by the crown, the Governor General and Lieutenant Generals. Without going into the fine details, the convention is that the Governor General and Queen exercise executive power only at the direction of Cabinet (the Prime Minister, and appointed Cabinet Ministers; our equivalent to Secretaries). Since Cabinet in turn takes their marching orders from the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has in practice near absolute control of our executive functions, on top of being the head of the legislative branch, making them very powerful relative to a US President.

 

Bills passed by the legislature must be 'signed into law'; they must be granted Royal Assent, usually by the Governor General. If Royal Assent is withheld, the Queen may at any point in the next two years formally annul the law. I can't think of any examples of this happening at the Federal level, but I think it happened at least once nearly a century ago in one of the Provinces.

 

 

So imagine if the President of the United States, and the Senate Majority Leader took their orders from the Speaker of the House, and you'd have some idea of what at least a Canadian or British Prime Minister is, and I think all the Commonwealth nations are fairly similar.

 

Oh, and declarations of war are part of the Royal Prerogative. Budget notwithstanding, that means that a declarion of war doesn't require any consultation of the legislature; it is a purely executive power.

[obfuscator]

 

 

...

To add to this: The prime minister is (in theory) just another member of parliament. But because they're the leader of the party, they have a huge amount of power (enforced by the party whip). On paper they have less power than the president of the US. In practice (in some areas) they have more. This does vary a bit over the different flavours of westminster democracy. Australia is less like this because they have frequent leadership reviews, so it's easier for the caucus to turf a leader they don't like. Canada never has these, so basically the only way a leader gets removed is if they resign (or lose multiple elections so a leadership convention is called for). From what little I know of the UK it's somewhat in between.

 

Good points. It also strikes me that a key point of confusion for Americans might be our seeming lack of an executive branch of Government.

 

Using Canada as my example, our Head of State is the British Monarch, who is represented in the Federal Government by the Governor General (an equivalent exists for each of the provinces, called the Lieutenant Governor). Much like the United States, our Judicial functions are managed by the courts, headed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The legislative functions are carried out by the House of Commons and the Senate, and since only the House of Commons may draft new laws, the legislative branch is effectively headed by the Prime Minister.

 

So far as I know, executive power is formally retained by the crown, the Governor General and Lieutenant Generals. Without going into the fine details, the convention is that the Governor General and Queen exercise executive power only at the direction of Cabinet (the Prime Minister, and appointed Cabinet Ministers; our equivalent to Secretaries). Since Cabinet in turn takes their marching orders from the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has in practice near absolute control of our executive functions, on top of being the head of the legislative branch, making them very powerful relative to a US President.

 

Bills passed by the legislature must be 'signed into law'; they must be granted Royal Assent, usually by the Governor General. If Royal Assent is withheld, the Queen may at any point in the next two years formally annul the law. I can't think of any examples of this happening at the Federal level, but I think it happened at least once nearly a century ago in one of the Provinces.

 

 

So imagine if the President of the United States, and the Senate Majority Leader took their orders from the Speaker of the House, and you'd have some idea of what at least a Canadian or British Prime Minister is, and I think all the Commonwealth nations are fairly similar.

 

Oh, and declarations of war are part of the Royal Prerogative. Budget notwithstanding, that means that a declarion of war doesn't require any consultation of the legislature; it is a purely executive power.

 

Good post. One clarification: Our head of state is the Canadian Monarch (who also happens to be the monarch of the UK). Legally speaking, they're distinct positions.

[Estonian dude]

You guys have weird governmental systems. Get on our level (parliamentary republic).

Prime minister is the head of executive system and is not a member of the parliament after accepting the position.

[Veiva]

I'm working on a library as a part of "custom NXT" renderer to allow rewriting the OpenGL call stream, and I have successfully created dependency graphs for calls (...or so I think...).

 

For example, item icons are models rendered via multiple stages and then copied into a texture atlas:

 

 

(The arrows are pointing to the item icons.)

 

The call set for the texture at the end of the frame includes creating the shaders early during start-up:

 

[hide]

frame 1900:
	texture 26:
		call 914: glActiveTexture
		call 1610: glDrawBuffer
		call 1611: glReadBuffer
		call 1964: glShaderSource
		call 1965: glCompileShader
		call 2135: glShaderSource
		call 2136: glCompileShader
		call 2139: glCreateProgram
		call 2144: glBindAttribLocation
		call 2145: glBindAttribLocation

[/hide]

 

The texture itself being created:

[hide]

call 43238: glGenTextures
call 43239: glBindTexture
call 43240: glTexImage2D
call 43241: glTexParameteri
call 43242: glTexParameteri
call 43243: glBindTexture
call 43244: glTexParameteri
call 43245: glTexParameteri
call 43246: glTexParameterf
call 43247: glTexParameteri
call 43248: glTexParameteri
call 43249: glTexParameteri
call 43250: glTexParameteri
call 43251: glTexParameteri
call 43254: glBindTexture
call 43255: glTexSubImage2D
call 43257: glBindTexture
call 43258: glTexSubImage2D
call 43260: glBindTexture
call 43261: glTexSubImage2D

[/hide]

 

And the item icon draws (seemingly):

 

[hide]

call 436528: glBindFramebufferEXT
call 436529: glClearColor
call 436530: glClear
call 436534: glBlendFuncSeparate
call 436535: glBlendEquationSeparate
call 436546: glViewport
call 436550: glDisable
call 436551: glDisable
call 436552: glColorMask
call 436553: glUseProgram
call 436556: glUniform1f
call 436559: glUniform1f
call 436564: glUniform1i
call 436568: glUniform4fv
call 436571: glUniform1f
call 436574: glUniform1f
call 436577: glUniformMatrix4fv
call 436579: glDrawRangeElements
call 436582: glBlendFuncSeparate
call 436583: glBlendEquationSeparate
call 436586: glDisable
call 436587: glDisable
call 436588: glColorMask
call 436589: glDisable
call 436590: glDepthMask
call 436591: glDepthFunc
call 436592: glDisable
call 436620: glUseProgram
call 436621: glBindVertexArray
call 436623: glEnableVertexAttribArray
call 436624: glVertexAttribPointer
call 436625: glEnableVertexAttribArray
call 436626: glVertexAttribPointer
call 436627: glDisableVertexAttribArray
call 436628: glDisableVertexAttribArray
call 436629: glDisableVertexAttribArray
call 436630: glDisableVertexAttribArray
call 436631: glDisableVertexAttribArray
call 436632: glDisableVertexAttribArray
call 436633: glDisableVertexAttribArray
call 436634: glDisableVertexAttribArray
call 436635: glDisableVertexAttribArray
call 436636: glDisableVertexAttribArray
call 436637: glDisableVertexAttribArray
call 436638: glDisableVertexAttribArray
call 436639: glDisableVertexAttribArray
call 436640: glDisableVertexAttribArray
call 436641: glBindFramebufferEXT
call 436645: glUniform4fv
call 436647: glUniform1i
call 436649: glUniform1i
call 436650: glDrawArrays
call 436655: glUniform4fv
call 436657: glUniform1i
call 436659: glBindFramebufferEXT
call 436663: glUniform1i
call 436664: glDrawArrays
call 436669: glDisable
call 436670: glEnable
call 436671: glBlendFuncSeparate
call 436672: glBlendEquationSeparate
call 436673: glColorMask
call 436675: glViewport
call 436677: glCopyImageSubData

[/hide]

 

Now I need to write a tool to replay the 'minimum dependent call set' (or DiscreteCallSet, as the object is called) to test it...

[MuffinMaddy]

Feeling pretty positive - was my last week of University last week.

I finished all of my exams and enjoyed my last few days with friends.

 

I still have to do my job for a few more weeks and after that I will go back home.

[Veiva]

I don't understand how secured credit card works. You borrow against your money? If I have $1000, I can spend $100 and take however long I want to 'pay back' the $100, while with a secured credit card, I'll be charged interest? They are literally charging me for nothing. I must be missing something.

I just want to build credit--I would pay the statement in full every month--but I have no credit history. I don't get it. I have a sibling who had no credit history and then got a few credit cards and maxed them and never paid them back. Yet here I am, someone who is financially responsible, who can't get a credit card without spending my own money. How absurd.

[Bonez899]

Secured credit cards are just you providing the bank with money so they aren't completely screwed if you don't pay your card and run off. Usually a small portion or half the balance, although I don't know for sure.

 

Secured vs unsecured probably has more to do with income than personal responsibility, as higher income is "better able" to pay off their card every month.

[Arceus]

The idea is give them, let's say $500, and they give you a credit limit of $1000. They will hold on to the $500 (generally indefinitely, until you close the account) as insurance so that, should you disappear off the face of the planet tomorrow, they can recoup that money along with whatever interest and transaction fees you have paid, and on average make a profit. Meanwhile, you spend on the card as you would any other credit card. If you don't pay it in full monthly, there will of course be interest. It's true on you they may lose money, but on the average they will make enough on interest from people with poor financial habits to turn a profit.

 

I do not know about the case of your sibling, but if you have no credit history your options are generally fairly limited. You can go to your local bank and see if someone there will override their system and give you a card on faith due to being a customer and depositing checks for n years if you have a good employment history, or get a secured card.

 

A few secured cards do offer the opportunity to convert into an unsecured one once your credit improves to a satisfactory level, so they would refund your deposit and your account would remain open. For example, see this Discover card. Otherwise, you would have to close the account to get your deposit back which will harm your credit.

 

It's a really crazy system for credit, cards and loans, but there aren't that many options 

[Tesset]

I get weekly credit card offers and I hate it.

 

These are the even better kind of card offer where you pay $500 a year for access to the card. But it's gold, so you know it's good.